Brian Beezley still in biz?
Dave Dabell
phone number in his qst ad - it's been disconnected. Tried sending email -
no reply. Does anyone know if he's still in business?
tnx, Dave wa3u
pmarkham
From what I have gathered from other reflectors and web sites, Brian has
dropped out of sight for "a while" after taking a substantial hit from
"crackers" and other intellectual property thieves.
Pete/wa4hei
PS. The above should be considered "sh..house" rumor.
Larry Benko
received it via e-mail a few hours later from k6...@n2.net. I
have no knowledge of what may have happened to Brian since then.
Larry Benko, AC0B
Marty Tippin
Lots of details at
http://www.megalink.net/~n1rct/news/rittyfaq.html
and
http://www.n2hos.com/digital/
(check newsletter 42A)
On 22 Jan 1999 18:55:44 GMT, da...@diusys.cms.udel.edu (Dave Dabell)
wrote:
>I'd like to get a copy of YO from Brian Beezley K6STI. I've tried calling the
>phone number in his qst ad - it's been disconnected. Tried sending email -
>no reply. Does anyone know if he's still in business?
73,
-Marty KIŘLO
mar...@pobox.com
Fractenna
>From: mar...@pobox.com (Marty Tippin)
>Date: 1/25/99 9:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <36ad70e...@news.supernews.net>
respect that he has a useful product(s) and is trying to make a living. Others
have found him helpful.
How can ANY of us advocate this pirating of Beezley's stuff? Perhaps we don't.
But we should at least be sympathetic to the plight which drove Brian to pull
out.
Chip N1IR
Richard Carroll
Well, I sympathize with him- but not too much. Why?
1.) I, for one, was a bit put off by the $100 price tag, and
felt that I didn't need to spend that kind of money for a
program that I might well not use much in the long run, and
so opted for a P38 card with the added modes. It would have
been better from my point of view to have made it available
for, say, $25 in which case I would have bought it and not
worried about longterm usage. Wouldn't it be better for him
to have sold many at $25 rather than a few at $100, and then
have hackers put him out of the running?
2.) connected with point 1- Aren't all software vendors
aware that hackers will get into the act anytime there's
money to be made- or saved? It's one principle of hacking
isn't it? An affordable version would have gone far to
stymie this likelihood. (no, I'm not a hacker- I don't even
program.) But I haven't forgotten the earlier days of
computing and what happened to Apple and Commodore, vs where
Bill Gates sits now. We should all be using Amigas now.
I think Brian fell into the same pit.
Dick
Cathryn Mataga
operators out of the business. Of course, Microsoft can
absorb the losses, nobody else can.
Selling software for ham radio is a recipe for unhappiness,
it looks to me -- whether or not you expect to make money.
Roy Lewallen
>
> Well, I sympathize with him- but not too much. Why?
>
> 1.) I, for one, was a bit put off by the $100 price tag, and
> felt that I didn't need to spend that kind of money for a
> program that I might well not use much in the long run, and
> so opted for a P38 card with the added modes. It would have
> been better from my point of view to have made it available
> for, say, $25 in which case I would have bought it and not
> worried about longterm usage. Wouldn't it be better for him
> to have sold many at $25 rather than a few at $100, and then
> have hackers put him out of the running?
>
> 2.) connected with point 1- Aren't all software vendors
> aware that hackers will get into the act anytime there's
> money to be made- or saved? It's one principle of hacking
> isn't it? An affordable version would have gone far to
> stymie this likelihood. (no, I'm not a hacker- I don't even
> program.) But I haven't forgotten the earlier days of
> computing and what happened to Apple and Commodore, vs where
> Bill Gates sits now. We should all be using Amigas now.
>
> I think Brian fell into the same pit.
>
> Dick
It sounds from this like you're saying that anyone who spends hundreds
of hours developing software is obligated to price the software as you
would like, or else be subject to people stealing the results of his
labor. If this is your point, I disagree.
I've just spent the past two weeks working about 14 hours per day, 7
days a week, on the next revision of my software. (I've spent nearly
full time for the past year on it also, and expect to spend the next
several months likewise.) I put off visiting my daughter until the
upgrade is finished, and I turned down invitations to visit two
conventions. I've also turned down consulting work (which,
incidentally, is much more lucrative) so I could work on the software.
How can anyone tell me how much I should or shouldn't charge for it,
or that it's justifiable under any circumstances to steal it? Anyone
who objects to the price should feel free to write his own, but not to
use that as justification for stealing what I've spent literally
thousands of hours writing!
There also seems to be the underlying impression that selling software
is somehow greedy. But there aren't many people who would quit their
jobs and work full time -- plus -- to develop software if it wouldn't
help pay the bills. And if too many people steal it instead of buying
it, so it no longer pays the bills, there won't be quality software
even to steal.
You bet that we software vendors are aware that hackers will get into
the act. Thieves are a fact of life, like cockroaches.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Roy Lewallen
>
> Just goes to show how the hackers just force all the smaller
> operators out of the business. Of course, Microsoft can
> absorb the losses, nobody else can.
>
> Selling software for ham radio is a recipe for unhappiness,
> it looks to me -- whether or not you expect to make money.
Actually, I've seldom been happier. I quit my day job at the cube farm
and make most of my living now writing and selling software, primarily
for hams. I've met a tremendous number of fine and interesting people,
and have all the other benefits of running my own business. It pays
only a fraction of what I made at my previous job (or what I could
easily make as a consultant), and keeps me working much longer hours,
but so far it's worth it. Like any job, though, it has its down as
well as up sides. Thieves are a constant problem, and one for which
there's no real solution. But I've had many, many cases where someone
sent me money for an additional copy for a friend, and I know that the
vast majority of my customers realize how much work has gone into the
software and respect its copyright. It's that honesty that makes me
able to keep putting it out. Thanks, all!
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Reg Edwards
to sell the stuff than it does to give it away.
Very often the quality (degree of conformance to
requirements) of free software is far superior to the
over-advertised rubbish on sale. Vendors are seldom the
authors.
The most reliable software comes direct from authors. They
have nothing to lose except their reputation. Reputations
are the most valuable commodity in this 'monetary' world.
Reputations are priceless !
To appreciate what I mean, visit the URL below -
--
**********************************
Reg, G4FGQ For FREE programs go to
http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp
**********************************
Roy Lewallen <w7...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<36ACCF2D...@teleport.com>...
Ron Higgs
Ron
Larry D. Clark
>
> Richard Carroll wrote:
> >
> > Well, I sympathize with him- but not too much. Why?
> >
> > 1.) I, for one, was a bit put off by the $100 price tag, and
> > felt that I didn't need to spend that kind of money for a
> > program that I might well not use much in the long run, and
> > so opted for a P38 card with the added modes. It would have
> > been better from my point of view to have made it available
> > for, say, $25 in which case I would have bought it and not
> > worried about longterm usage. Wouldn't it be better for him
> > to have sold many at $25 rather than a few at $100, and then
> > have hackers put him out of the running?
> >
> > 2.) connected with point 1- Aren't all software vendors
> > aware that hackers will get into the act anytime there's
> > money to be made- or saved? It's one principle of hacking
> > isn't it? An affordable version would have gone far to
> > stymie this likelihood. (no, I'm not a hacker- I don't even
> > program.) But I haven't forgotten the earlier days of
> > computing and what happened to Apple and Commodore, vs where
> > Bill Gates sits now. We should all be using Amigas now.
> >
> > I think Brian fell into the same pit.
> >
> > Dick
>
--
roy
very well said indeed. i once wrote code for a living, still do once
in a while. why should anyone give away the result of hundreds of
hours of work so someone else can pay nothing or $19.95 for it.
larry d. clark
kd5foy
Ian White, G3SEK
>Actually, I've seldom been happier.
....
>I know that the
>vast majority of my customers realize how much work has gone into the
>software and respect its copyright. It's that honesty that makes me
>able to keep putting it out. Thanks, all!
Sorry, Roy, but you can't escape without taking some of the credit
yourself!
You have always been helpful, friendly and honest yourself, so you've
made it very easy for people to respond to you in the same way.
73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.demon.co.uk/g3sek
Cathryn Mataga
> The most reliable software comes direct from authors. They
> have nothing to lose except their reputation. Reputations
> are the most valuable commodity in this 'monetary' world.
> Reputations are priceless !
It's just the pirates who whine about rich Bill Gates,
then they screw over some poor guy working for low wages in
his house, as if it's all the same. They post here on the
net as if it's no big deal. So, there you go. As the
internet and the pirates become faster and more efficient,
well, you know how it goes... It ain't Microsoft that's
going away any time soon.
Clark Fishman
the $100 software. He asked if I was going to use it in my
business. I wasn't sure but said yes. He then said the price was
$500. I could't go that so did not buy. But I did not try to get
a bootleg copy, instead I did without. It's his software and his
business to price as he sees fit, presumably for maximum total
income. I'm sorry to hear what happened. It's a loss for all of
us to have one less source. -- Jack, K6NY, Palomar Engineers
--
Jack Althouse K6NY
Orv Beach
>
> Roy Lewallen wrote:
> >
[some stuff deleted]
>
> I see I didn't do an effectifve job of explaining my
> position. There is no way that I could compare RiTTY with
> ELNEC, which I don't have and haven't found a need to use up
> til now. ELNEC is a versatile, complex and widely useful
> antenna modeling program, if I understand correctly. RiTTY
> on the other hand had only a single mode function, and when
> I considered it, I found that it was said to be a bit fickle
> about what equipment it would run with. So when one spent
> his $100 for it, it might be just the start and new hardware
> might be required as well. I'm aware that it may have been
> unique in the field, and that much effort and time was
> invested in its development. But that alone didn't make it
> worth the money and I feel that he would have had a much
> better shot at success with it if he had offered it at a
> more appropriate price for the function it performed.
I have to put my two cents in here. About 10 or 12 years ago, Brian
worked at my company; he was our first voice DSP engineer. He was even
at that time a bonafide genius in DSP algorithm design.
I happen to know that the algorithms Brian put into RITTY for the
recovery of data bits from a mangled audio stream are extremely
sophisticated. He goes to great lengths to recover bits, and in the
case of Pactor, minimize the retransmission of bits.
My comparisons of RITTY with the Hal P38 showed that under weak signal
conditions, RITTY runs rings around the P38, both in RTTY and Pactor.
Both use DSP; the difference is in the performance of the algorithms.
My point is this: don't confusion "single function" with "simplistic";
RITTY is a complex piece of software. Brian deserves to get
compensated for the sweat he put into it. You pay for the performance
level (unparalled), not necessarily the bells and whistles (it's NOT
fancy).
73 - Orv - W6BI.
K1BQT
You have always been helpful, friendly and honest yourself, so you've made it
very easy for people to respond to you in the same way.
True enough, and well said Ian. Sometimes "business problems" are personal
problems come home to roost.
Rick K1BQT
Richard Carroll
I see I didn't do an effectifve job of explaining my
position. There is no way that I could compare RiTTY with
ELNEC, which I don't have and haven't found a need to use up
til now. ELNEC is a versatile, complex and widely useful
antenna modeling program, if I understand correctly. RiTTY
on the other hand had only a single mode function, and when
I considered it, I found that it was said to be a bit fickle
about what equipment it would run with. So when one spent
his $100 for it, it might be just the start and new hardware
might be required as well. I'm aware that it may have been
unique in the field, and that much effort and time was
invested in its development. But that alone didn't make it
worth the money and I feel that he would have had a much
better shot at success with it if he had offered it at a
more appropriate price for the function it performed.
> I've just spent the past two weeks working about 14 hours per day, 7
> days a week, on the next revision of my software. (I've spent nearly
> full time for the past year on it also, and expect to spend the next
> several months likewise.) I put off visiting my daughter until the
> upgrade is finished, and I turned down invitations to visit two
> conventions. I've also turned down consulting work (which,
> incidentally, is much more lucrative) so I could work on the software.
> How can anyone tell me how much I should or shouldn't charge for it,
> or that it's justifiable under any circumstances to steal it? Anyone
> who objects to the price should feel free to write his own, but not to
> use that as justification for stealing what I've spent literally
> thousands of hours writing!
I have a friend who writes software so I know something
about what is involved and the value of those efforts. It's
not something that just anyone can do at all, and it should
be protected and not abused. No disagreement whatever here.
>
> There also seems to be the underlying impression that selling software
> is somehow greedy.
That's a matter of the value that individuals place on the
software, of course. Some bought RiTTY at $100. I'd imagine
that many, like me, did not, for the same reason I didn't- I
just didn't think the value was there, for my application.
It would've helped if it would have definitely worked on
all soundcards. But it was conceivable that one could buy it
and never be able to use it. That was very detrimental to
it's value IMO.
> But there aren't many people who would quit their
> jobs and work full time -- plus -- to develop software if it wouldn't
> help pay the bills.
> And if too many people steal it instead of buying
> it, so it no longer pays the bills, there won't be quality software
> even to steal.
In which case all these wonderful computing machines won't
be worth that much to us.
> You bet that we software vendors are aware that hackers will get into
> the act. Thieves are a fact of life, like cockroaches.
And I don't support that sort of thing, at all. But the
vendors' approach to marketing means everything to their
eventual success or failure, as noted with Apple and
Commodore. Some marketing techniques can help to neutralize
the hacker-theives, while other approaches just help them,
to the larger detriment to the vendor.
Looks like a balancing act that isn't easy or necessarily
intuitive.
Dick W0EX
Richard Carroll
>
> Reg Edwards wrote:
> > The most reliable software comes direct from authors. They
> > have nothing to lose except their reputation. Reputations
> > are the most valuable commodity in this 'monetary' world.
> > Reputations are priceless !
>
> It's just the pirates who whine about rich Bill Gates,
It isn't clear that you're referring to me as a pirate, so
I can easily look beyond the implication, but I sure don't
whine about Bill Gates, How could anyone but respect his
acumen, when he parlayed a third rate computer operating
system into the biggest personal fortune in history?
> then they screw over some poor guy working for low wages in
> his house, as if it's all the same. They post here on the
> net as if it's no big deal. So, there you go.
No, there *you* go--reading things into my post which
aren't there--if I assume that you're referring to my post
which was near the head of this thread and has evidently
become the subject. What I said was, In my opinion Brian
Beezly messed up his chances of making good with RiTTY by
poor marketing techniques IE, overpricing for the value and
utility offered in the software. That's what I said and
that's what I meant. Evidently he thought that since it was
the first soundcard DSP digital comm. program that it was
worth it. I didn't think so, so I didn't buy it- and I don't
plan to get it from any other source. I don't even know if
it will work on my computer, but I understand that it
requires the original Soundblaster card and that a
compatible usually won't work. Most today are
on-the-mainboard compatibles, as mine is. That was the
clincher.
I also said that software vendors know about hackers and
where they're coming from, so that knowledge should help
them make their marketing decisions such that they have the
best chance to avoid those effects to whatever extent is
possible (if I may paraphrase and expand just a little). I
understand the software author/vendors frustration but feel
that correct marketing and realistic pricing can help. No
one can expect software that is not sensibly priced to
succeed, whatever the cost in time and work to produce it.
The word is Realism. Disagreement on this is almost certain,
of course.
> As the
> internet and the pirates become faster and more efficient,
> well, you know how it goes... It ain't Microsoft that's
> going away any time soon.
Oh, I don't know....There's always Linux.... Some people
think it will replace Windows within a few years for a great
many users....Didn't I read that it's free? Not that it
should be, but evidently it is.
73, Dick W0EX
Roy Lewallen
>
> Richard Carroll wrote:
> >
> > Roy Lewallen wrote:
> > >
> [some stuff deleted]
> >
> > position. There is no way that I could compare RiTTY with
> > ELNEC, which I don't have and haven't found a need to use up
> > til now. ELNEC is a versatile, complex and widely useful
> > antenna modeling program, if I understand correctly. RiTTY
> > on the other hand had only a single mode function, and when
> > I considered it, I found that it was said to be a bit fickle
> > about what equipment it would run with. So when one spent
> > his $100 for it, it might be just the start and new hardware
> > might be required as well. I'm aware that it may have been
> > unique in the field, and that much effort and time was
> > invested in its development. But that alone didn't make it
> > worth the money and I feel that he would have had a much
> > better shot at success with it if he had offered it at a
> > more appropriate price for the function it performed.
A point of clarification. I did not write the above paragraph; it was
Richard Carroll's. This might not have been clear to people not
familiar with the way programs mark quotations, or who looked at it
casually. (And who might wonder why I wouldn't use my own software! ;)
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
pmarkham
> No one can expect software that is not sensibly priced to
>succeed, whatever the cost in time and work to produce it.
>The word is Realism. Disagreement on this is almost certain,
>of course.
>>73, Dick W0EX
The success of any product should be based on its merits and the acceptance by
the purchaser of the seller/producer's offer. I purchased a copy of AO. I
have seen and played with NEC WIRES. I researched and decided to own a copy of
RITTY, when I upgraded to a new computer. Beezley offered/offers a unique
product with advanced features.
Beezley's RITTY is/was the best dsp modem available in its price bracket. It
has no peers and is a better performer than most/all of the consumer hardware
designed to do the same thing, at a lot less money. To imply that he deserved
to be ripped off because he refused to give it away or sell it at a price
desired or dictated by someone else is a vote for slavery and theft.
It amazes me that those who would scream "bloody murder" if anyone suggested
their wages or benefits be reduced by a "sensible" whim of a third party,
would sanction, in any form, the philosophy of a parasite; from each according
to their ability, to each according to their need.
Pete/wa4hei
Richard Earl
Rich
W9JUC
Richard Carroll
>
> Richard Carroll wrote:
> I'm aware that it may have been
> > unique in the field, and that much effort and time was
> > invested in its development. But that alone didn't make it
> > worth the money and I feel that he would have had a much
> > better shot at success with it if he had offered it at a
> > more appropriate price for the function it performed.
>
> I have to put my two cents in here. About 10 or 12 years ago, Brian
> worked at my company; he was our first voice DSP engineer. He was even
> at that time a bonafide genius in DSP algorithm design.
>
> I happen to know that the algorithms Brian put into RITTY for the
> recovery of data bits from a mangled audio stream are extremely
> sophisticated. He goes to great lengths to recover bits, and in the
> case of Pactor, minimize the retransmission of bits.
>
> My comparisons of RITTY with the Hal P38 showed that under weak signal
> conditions, RITTY runs rings around the P38, both in RTTY and Pactor.
> Both use DSP; the difference is in the performance of the algorithms.
Irv, thanks for your input. It is becoming more clear why
it was priced above what seemed proper. Most hams including
me have little or no experience with DSP other than the
audio processor attachments,(I have a W9GR and a Timewave)
which offer some performance advantage, but nothing all that
impressive. It shouldn't be hard to understand why those who
are not involved in leading edge R&D need to be 'sold' on
these features. Still a marketing problem, at some level.
> My point is this: don't confusion "single function" with "simplistic";
> RITTY is a complex piece of software. Brian deserves to get
> compensated for the sweat he put into it.
No argument here, but it's necessary to convey the
necessary information to buyers to convince them that the
product IS worth the cost, and exactly why. Facing the same
decision now, I'd have a different point of view, at least.
> You pay for the performance
> level (unparalled), not necessarily the bells and whistles (it's NOT
> fancy).
I haven't seen this stated before. If it's that good, it
might well be worth installing a specific soundcard to be
able to use it.
I know that all DSP has performance advantages-his even
more than most, but what is much less certain is just what
they are truly worth over lesser efficiencies. How important
is it to hams to be able to dig out signals from a few dB
further into the noise? Is it worth $100 plus specific
hardware? These things play into any decision, and usually
the proof comes after the purchase, if there is one.
And AFAIC the P38 is *too* complex from an operational
standpoint.
It's disappointing at the very least to see Brian close out
his DSP talents to hams when it looks to me like it could
have easily been a very successful endeavor. Instead of
offering it "on sale" to enhance its attractiveness to
customers and to increase sales, he upped the price to $150
before, as info here indicates, closing up shop. That goes
against the main prinicples of business, and if he wanted to
be in the business of selling software to hams, (and his ads
in QST would seem to confirm that), then I'd expect he has
to follow the same business rules that prevail everywhere -
Use marketing techniques that work.
And the person with the "first" in a high-tech product to
sell, has an additional problem - he has to educate as well
as market.
I'd really like to see Brian reconsider. The more I learn
about his stuff the more likely I would eventually become a
customer - at the "right" price, whatever that turns out to
be. But if he doesn't I'll just continue along without it.
But it'd truly be a damn shame if hackers had the only RiTTY
version available to anyone. Ham radio's loss, truly.
73, Dick W0EX
Fractenna
>to be ripped off because he refused to give it away or sell it at a price
>desired or dictated by someone else is a vote for slavery and theft.
>
I absolutely agree. Piracy is probably a bit more descriptive though.
Brian is a bright, creative guy and I wish him well.
73
Chip N1IR
Roy Lewallen
> . . .
> Brian is a bright, creative guy and I wish him well.
I sincerely second that sentiment!
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Richard Carroll
no one actually reading what I wrote?
pmarkham wrote:
>
> The success of any product should be based on its merits and the acceptance by
> the purchaser of the seller/producer's offer.
Exactly. And if the seller intends to make sales, he'd
doggone well better get the word OUT loud and clear, telling
potential customers just how good the product is. I offer
that you who DID know how good RiTTY was failed to inform
those of us who did not by letters to editors and otherwise.
Few buyers anywhere will do extensive research unless they
have inside knowledge and suspect the product is superior.
They are much more likely to look at the information
available and the price, and decide if it is worth it. If
the product offered has special attributes and benefits, it
clearly is up to the vendor to make it clear that these are
indeed worth the additional cost. My decision was that a P38
card would do the same thing and much more, without the
hassle of getting a specific soundcard to use and making
sure it did work.
> I purchased a copy of AO. I
> have seen and played with NEC WIRES. I researched and decided to own a copy of
> RITTY
Then you did his marketing for him! A year and a half ago
when I first heard of RiTTY it was not stated that it also
worked PACTOR, only RTTY, and nowhere did I find any such
claims as you have made below, with the comments of others
here. For sure all that would have been major components in
coming to a decision. It wasn't until after I had gone with
another system that I learned that PACTOR was supported.
Seems that the only people who were/are fully aware of
RiTTY's attractive attributes are those who are already pros
in the digital field. Playing to them won't get the job
done, when the larger customer base is not so well informed.
> when I upgraded to a new computer. Beezley offered/offers a unique
> product with advanced features.
>
> Beezley's RITTY is/was the best dsp modem available in its price bracket. It
> has no peers and is a better performer than most/all of the consumer hardware
> designed to do the same thing, at a lot less money.
So that's exactly the way that is should have been
presented,and nowhere until today have I seen it so stated.
> To imply that he deserved
> to be ripped off because he refused to give it away or sell it at a price
> desired or dictated by someone else is a vote for slavery and theft.
And no such thing was implied here by me. I said that I
didn't think it was worth what he asked for it. Clearly my
evaluation of its worth has gone up on the strength of what
you and others have said about it here. But the lack of
accurate and timely marketing information *at the time I
-and others- was in a buying mode* seems to have been the
main factor that killed his market, not anything I have
"implied".
>
> It amazes me that those who would scream "bloody murder" if anyone suggested
> their wages or benefits be reduced by a "sensible" whim of a third party,
> would sanction, in any form, the philosophy of a parasite;
A "sensible" price is what I determine it to be based on
the facts available to me when I make that decision. It is
mostly based on marketing information presented by the
vendor, experience and hearsay. Tell me that the vast
majority of people do it differently. I don't believe it and
Madison Avenue doesn't either.
Dick W0EX
Cathryn Mataga
> that correct marketing and realistic pricing can help. No
> one can expect software that is not sensibly priced to
> succeed, whatever the cost in time and work to produce it.
> The word is Realism. Disagreement on this is almost certain,
> of course.
>
Roy Lewallen
>
> Doggone, am I doing that poorly at expressing myself or is
> no one actually reading what I wrote?
The problem may be that Brian was said to have thrown in the towel in
response to piracy. Yet your comments have concentrated on how to
properly market a product, and seem to assume that his products were
financially unsuccessful. We (or at least I) have no idea whether or
not his programs sold well or made a profit. Brian has been selling
his software to amateurs for more than 10 years now, and I assume that
he knows as well as anyone how to price his product -- I certainly
wouldn't try to second-guess his pricing policies. Since we began here
talking about why (or if) Brian has quit, and the universal opinion is
that it was discouragement about piracy, discussion about the
usability, quality, and price of his product inevitably cause people
to think you feel this has some association with piracy. You've said
that you don't feel his software (or mine, for that matter) to be
worth the price to you. That's fine, and an opinion shared by the vast
majority of amateurs (and about the vast majority of software). But
what, if anything, does this have to do with piracy and Brian
quitting?
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Richard Carroll
> > think it will replace Windows within a few years for a great
> > many users....Didn't I read that it's free? Not that it
> > should be, but evidently it is.
> >
Not applicible to this venue but certainly to the subject
matter at hand, is an essay that you can read at
http://muq.org/~cynbe/rants/lastdino.htm
for a very interesting glimpse into the future of computing
and software development....
73, Dick W0EX
James Lee Tabor
This was originally written Monday when the thread contained 3 messages;
this first and the second paragraph is new. I've since read the new ones
and found much to appreciate in most messages. The comments on marketing
are interesting but not helpful. I know of one ham software company that
spent $10k plus on ads during one year plus had new product announcments
and columnist write-ups, yet some coustomrs still asked: wow, why don't
you advertise.
So, let good things come from this thread; let one of them be "HOW?" how
to accomplish this great feat of marketing ham software.
This seems a loss. I've read the suggested links and have a vague idea
of what's
happening.
> > > http://www.megalink.net/~n1rct/news/rittyfaq.html
> > > http://www.n2hos.com/digital/
> > > (check newsletter 42A)
> [snip]
> > How can ANY of us advocate this pirating of Beezley's stuff? Perhaps we don't.
> [snip]
> 1.) [snip] Wouldn't it be better for him to have sold many at $25 rather than a
> few at $100, and then
> have hackers put him out of the running?
Sorry to say it doesn't work this way, money wise.
Not to split hairs, which this isn't actually, "hackers" are
traditionally not
malicious; the media has perverted the term and confused it with
"crackers" as noted
in a reply above. A bit of research will show that a hacker can be a
good thing;
it's hard to imagine a "cracker" representing anything good.
> 2.) connected with point 1- Aren't all software vendors aware that hackers will
> get into the act anytime there's
> money to be made- or saved?
I suppose so, just the same as you local grocery store, gas station or
even your
neighbors taking "your" belongings from your property.
> It's one principle of hacking isn't it?
NO. Hacking is the art of "making" something "work" as it should or even
in a sense
"home brewing" as in amateur radio.
> An affordable version would have gone far to stymie this likelihood.
The writer may know far more on this than I, however I believe this is
not really
correct. Many computer users trade licensed $20 software like "sports
cards". The
selling price is a small factor, or no consideration.
> (no, I'm not a hacker- I don't even program.) But I haven't forgotten the earlier
> days of computing and what happened to Apple and Commodore, vs where Bill Gates
> sits now. We should all be using Amigas now.
Apple wanted to keep the "whole pie" for themselves; they practiced a
"closed
architecture". The IBM PC welcomed 3rd party hardware venders. I can't
say about
Commodore, maybe its "toy" image, marketing failure, timing and even
Amiga's lack
of full backward compatibility. ?? This is a different market entirely.
No?
I personally have no comment on the article or persons mentioned, just
the subject -
ham software; it's a tough and occasionally frustrating business. On
the other side it can also be personally satisfying. If someone can
squeeze even a meager living from it then they must possess some great
secret, among other qualities, and also be especially blessed.
Amateur radio has meant much to me through these past 20 years (a
youngster I know,
hi). I am driven to write software and combining the two is "the cat's
meow". It is
typically quite expensive to develop and market software; the software
needs to at
least support that aspect. If the product is good, the developer surely
should be
able to expect a reasonable profit in return. The ham/developers family
would
certainly appreciate this benefit anyway; a small consolation for the
time they lose
with him/her. :-)
It is very hurtful that so many of us (hams in general) ignore
intellectual property
rights; many simple don't understand. Yes, I've long felt hams are
typically a
special type person and been proud to be a member of such an elite
group; both sins
on my part, I do realize.
I do apologize for this long rambling message; it isn't aimed at anyone!
73 & Good Sunspots,
Jim - KU5S
--
http://www.taborsoft.com
Communications Analysis Prediction Wizard
CAPMan HF Propagation Prediction & System Analysis Software
GerryL
'Pactor' which cost him royalty payments to the company that owns 'Pactor'.. So
one was getting both Rtty and Pactor in the one program. Brian said he didn't
know how well Pactor was going to go over, so he dropped it for the time being,
and lowered his price back down to $100 bucks.
Considering the fact that his program is not just a RTTY operating program but
actually is the software equivalent of a high end 'terminal unit' such as the
Hal Devices ST-8000, (ala $4000 bucks) and all that with a $40 sound blaster
card, makes it really really a fine piece of software. I don't know of his
present plans, but he indicated to me before he signed off, that he was stopping
development for a time, in order to rewrite the program in such a way as to stop
or slow down hacking efforts..If he really has bailed out, we 'all' have lost a
great deal..
A hundred bucks for what that software was about and actually did, was the
bargin of the year!
>the original $25 I noted earlier had I known the full story
>on RiTTY. Whether I'd have been ready to buy at the full
>$100 I can't say, I'd have had to think about that for
>awhile, and look into getting a soundblaster card that I
>could be certain would work.
> But I see in his ad in a late QST he has raised the price
>to $150.
>I think that would leave me out. Did his product suddenly
>gain 50% in value, or was the price increase just to
>"punish" us who thought it was too high to begin with?
fan...@yahoo.com
k1...@aol.com (K1BQT) wrote:
> >Sorry, Roy, but you can't escape without taking some of the credit yourself!
> You have always been helpful, friendly and honest yourself, so you've made it
> very easy for people to respond to you in the same way.
Yep Roy you're gonna have to take a little more credit. You have always
patiently taken the time to answer my simple questions concerning how to use
EZNEC. In doing so you have made me consider the money I spent for EZNEC to
be worth every dime and then some. Keep up the good work!
73!
Jeff Jones
AB6MB
NorCal QRP #65
CW Forever!!!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Richard Carroll
>
> Richard Carroll wrote:
> >
> > Doggone, am I doing that poorly at expressing myself or is
> > no one actually reading what I wrote?
> > . . .
>
> The problem may be that Brian was said to have thrown in the towel in
> response to piracy. Yet your comments have concentrated on how to
> properly market a product, and seem to assume that his products were
> financially unsuccessful.
For my part, RiTTY was not properly presented at the time I
was looking at it, and I see that as a failure of marketing,
although dependence on word-of-mouth is a factor. Sometimes
things are not described or discussed thoroughly enough in
informal contacts. Marketing to ham radio operators is sure
to be a tough challenge at best.
> We (or at least I) have no idea whether or
> not his programs sold well or made a profit.
From the information on the highlighted links given earlier
in the thread, evidently not.
> Brian has been selling
> his software to amateurs for more than 10 years now, and I assume that
> he knows as well as anyone how to price his product -- I certainly
> wouldn't try to second-guess his pricing policies.
Nor would I, except I considered and rejected it at his
asking price, in part because of incomplete information, as
it turns out. There was a failure in there somewhere. Part
of it was undoubtedly mine. But not all.
> Since we began here
> talking about why (or if) Brian has quit, and the universal opinion is
> that it was discouragement about piracy, discussion about the
> usability, quality, and price of his product inevitably cause people
> to think you feel this has some association with piracy.
I mentioned that hackers/crackers might have been dissuaded
from wasting their time with a less expensive piece of
software. I think that history will show that the idea is to
sell something that everyone wants at a price they are
willing to pay. I would have been willing to pay more that
the original $25 I noted earlier had I known the full story
on RiTTY. Whether I'd have been ready to buy at the full
$100 I can't say, I'd have had to think about that for
awhile, and look into getting a soundblaster card that I
could be certain would work.
But I see in his ad in a late QST he has raised the price
to $150.
I think that would leave me out. Did his product suddenly
gain 50% in value, or was the price increase just to
"punish" us who thought it was too high to begin with?
> You've said
> that you don't feel his software (or mine, for that matter) to be
> worth the price to you.
Roy, I said that based on my understanding of RiTTY at the
time I was considering it, I didn't see it as worth the
price. I said I don't own your antenna modeling software,
but that's becasuse I don't use that sort of software. If I
ever do, I'll be getting it. From you. I believe I said that
your antenna software is a different situation than a
single-use communications software program. As I recall,
ELNEC seemed like a good enough deal-but only if one USES
it, just like anything else.
> That's fine, and an opinion shared by the vast
> majority of amateurs (and about the vast majority of software).
I don't agree with that at all. Good, useful software at a
"sensible" price will always attract plenty of buyers.
Including me.
On the other hand, if the author feels he can't price it so
that most people who would use it will want to buy, I guess
he'll just have to pick up his marbles and go do something
else. Simple supply and demand.
> But
> what, if anything, does this have to do with piracy and Brian
> quitting?
Everything.
Another poster made the distinction between 'hackers' and
'crackers', one I hadn't seen but it makes sense. Hackers do
it for fun, crackers with illicit profit in mind. My point
was meant to be that if a vendor can sell many copies at
more attractive prices rather than a few at top prices, it
would seem that the hacker/crackers would be dissuaded from
their efforts, since there would be little to gain by it. A
double win for the software author. Whether or not that is
possible in such a limited market as ham radio I can't know.
But I'm pretty sure that will help determine his success or
failure.
Hey, all this is my fairly well informed point of view, and
I'm reasonably sure that it is shared by a lot of other
hams. If I had thought it would generate this much
controversy I'd have kept it to myself.
Dick W0EX
pmarkham
(Much rationalization deleted, similar in character to other posts):
> But I see in his ad in a late QST he has raised the price
>to $150.
>I think that would leave me out. Did his product suddenly
>gain 50% in value, or was the price increase just to
>"punish" us who thought it was too high to begin with?
>
>
> Hey, all this is my fairly well informed point of view, and
>I'm reasonably sure that it is shared by a lot of other
>hams. If I had thought it would generate this much
>controversy I'd have kept it to myself.
>
>Dick W0EX
Had you made the basic inquiries in Deja News and typical web search engines,
typing in the query box such keywords as RITTY, Beezley, K6STI, etc. you would
understand how hollow your words and reasoning sound to those that made those
inquiries and followed the appropriate links. Beezley's software sold itself
as a consequence of the testimonials of those that purchased it, evaluated it,
compared it, liked it, and let others know who made the most elementary
inquiries about it. A web page, http://www.megalink.net/~n1rct/rit2/rit2.html
has been dedicated to the software for over 1 1/2 years, that I know of. It
claims to have registered 46,000 + hits since February of last year. Had you
followed the links you would not expose yourself to the ridicule you deserve
for the blatant fabrications you have posted to this newsgroup.
I am not aware that Brian spoke of his software in the same manner as Roy in a
forum similar to this one. Over the past 6 years I have had 3 phone
conversations with Brian and several email exchanges with him, concerning his
software. I concluded, perhaps incorrectly, that his bedside manners are not
as polished as Roy's and he is less likely to suffer fools, gladly. I suspect
that has cost him, dearly, but among those that have not rationalized their
own failings and expended a modicum of intellectual effort to locate
information about Brian's software products, I doubt anyone has a gripe of
consequence.
"Punish"? Beezely's technical reasons for the change in pricing WAS documented
on a linked web page to n1rct's, above.
As one who has followed the evolution of RITTY, is licensed to use AO, has
played extensively with a licensed copy of NEC WIRES and believes in value
for money, I conclude Brian's software is exellent value for the money and
is/was not designed for the masses. I have little doubt that it was not in
Brian's mind to retire on the proceeds of his "ham" software. I am sure he
had reasonable expectation to be paid by those that use his software, within
the context of his offers. RITTY is a Ferrari compared to a typical family
sedan in the ham market of rtty and Pactor 1 dsp and hardware modems. I
suspect there is little to justify claimed failure of his software marketing
technique(s), given no substantive information from the creator, himself.
PS. Add the price of a $50 sound board to the $150 (you say) software and then
tell me about the new $200 hardware modem that performs to the same rtty and
Pactor 1 specs. Tell me about other $200 dsp modem packages that perform as
well. Tell me about less than $200 dsp modem packages that perform as well.
I have no reason to believe there was anything wrong with his software
marketing techniques or the performance of the RITTY software. What is wrong
are those that succumb to the overpowering desire to get something for
nothing, or as close as they can get. Owning software of Roy's and Brian's
caliber is discretionary, not a matter of life and death. Nothing justifies
stealing it or disparaging it for contrived reasons.
"fairly well informed"? I conclude otherwise.
No more noise from my corner concerning this subject.... for a while.
Pete/wa4hei
Richard Carroll
Of course I learned some things from it, too. Just like I
learned five minutes ago right here that PACTOR was a late
add-on to RiTTY that caused the price jump to $150. I'm sure
that, from my reading at the time I was interested 1 1/2
years ago, that no PACTOR was included originally, and
learning here a couple days ago that it WAS, just reinforced
my opinion on the marketing comments, etc.
Let's be perfectly clear on one point--I very much want
the good ham radio software writers to succeed. No one wants
them to become disillusioned and quit. And I don't know of
anyone who wants to steal their products, though there is
always someone who will. Ham radio needs them, desperately,
more now that ever before. So as I see it, the idea is to
try to help them succeed. But I don't see them succeeding
without the use of successful sales techniques, which
include 'getting out the word'-ALL of it, or at least enough
that a person doesn't have to go digging into Dejanews to
find the attractive attributes. Face it-to most computer
users, software is software. It either does the job or you
pitch it and write off your investment. We all know about
the glowing promises of Microshaft vs the realities of
trying to keep a Windows computer out of crash mode over the
longterm. Without sufficient specific information on any
particular software package, mostly it's viewed as just
another program. It looks just like Brand X, only at an
inflated price. The fact that RiTTY was the first DSP
soundcard program just made it first, nothing more, without
more information. It surely won't be the last. And many
active hams can't afford to be loose with $100 when a $20
alternate will suffice. We know that you guys hanging out on
the leading edge are all pushing DSP to the limit, and I
don't argue with that. But experience with the audio DSP
add-ons has not been nearly as impressive as the glowing
advance notice would have led us believe. Yeah, it can be a
help under some circumstances. But it's not the Holy Grail
of ham radio communicaitons, at least not at this point in
time. The coming QRM levels after the longawaited
"restructuring" of the ARS may bring DSP to the fore.
Anybody remember the 50's and 60's and the AM hetrodynes on
a busy band?
We all appreciate that all software authors invest much
time and effort in their work and deserve to be paid, if
that is their wish. Althoughmany authors donate their work
to the "good of the cause" no one criticizes the desire to
be paid for ones efforts. I don't like working for free most
of the time either, although most of us who have gained
skills have done plenty of that at times. The authors are in
the best position to value their work, although no one is
obligated agree with their decisions.
Yes---If I hung out on the digital NG's or kept close
watch on other digital venues I'd surely know at least some
of what I've learned here in the past couple days. I've
spent a large part of my available time in the past couple
years attempting to counter those would turn this hobby into
a place inhabited by a few genuises and lots of
memorized-test CB style yakkers, with little in between.
Theres just so many hours in a day and I have many other
interests, not the least of which these days includes
computing. Remember, I considered RiTTY a year and a half
ago and wrote it off as inadequate (single mode), too
hardware specific (soundblaster card only) and thus I
perceived it to be overpriced for my needs. Now I find that
the information the decision was based upon was incomplete,
and also features have been added in the meantime without
being well publicised. I must consider that a failure of
information (read marketing). I made a reasonable effort to
determine if it met my buying criteria and it did not. Since
that time I have not devoted the time to following it. I saw
no reason to do so, from the ham periodicals I read. The
recent ad that I looked up yesterday showing the increased
price does show it as including PACTOR but doesn't say that
it has been added to the original version, further confusing
the issue.
If you see my opinions as 'blatant fabrications', that's
your problem - they are not. I suggest you persuade Brian to
either turn the marketing of his products over to some
entity that can really sell them or that you gather him up,
and both of you find a local JuCo and enroll in Marketing
101. His software won't "sell itself" to the majority of
hams, who aren't deeply immersed in digital modes but who
would otherwise be interested and many of whom would become
buyers. Upon that factor may hinge the success or failure
of his efforts. I wish him well.
Dick W0EX
Ron Higgs
criticized him but no-one has mentioned the feelings of the users who
have paid good money to PURCHASE the software (overpriced or not) and
now find it was money 'down the drain'.
Sure, it can be considered as a 'one time unit purchase' but as
shareware paying users, I would have expected a little more
consideration than Brian gave us. He did not email his customers with
any kind of explanation, nor any apology.
I purchased RITTY after evaluating many other RTTY options, both
hardware and software. It was (is) a well executed development and the
latest versions are outstanding in weak signal and QRM situations. My
RITTY 3.xx will copy signals often buried in the QRM/QRN to the point
they cannot, at times, be heard. I am loath to switch to any other TNC
(soft or hard) as I have not tried, seen, or heard of one that is easier
to use and performs better under poor conditions.
In buying a license, I did believe (naively, it now seems) that I was
also supporting Brian's continued development efforts and continued
customer support. All indications are that he plans to do neither due to
being miffed at a few off-shore operators who are using a bootleg
version.
To the on-shore users I have talked to, and in my humble opinion, his
actions are both immature and irresponsible.
Ron
Home Page & Photo Gallery: http://www.flash.net/~erhiggs
Richwood, Texas
rgrand...@comdt.uscg.mil
Roy Lewallen <w7...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> The problem may be that Brian was said to have thrown in the towel in
> response to piracy.
Well, I purchased several of his antenna modeling software versions in the
past, and while I had DOS they worked fine. Operating in the DOS environment
in Windows 95 I've had nothing but problems with losing the security "keys".
The keys are on the hard disk but the programs fail to execute and can't
transfer the keys back to the floppy. I've called him about the problem but
have not gotten much help. He probably should have used a different scheme
for copy-protecting his software.
W4VR.....these are my opionions and not those of the US Coast Guard.
Gary Coffman
>Roy Lewallen wrote:
>>I know that the
>>vast majority of my customers realize how much work has gone into the
>>software and respect its copyright. It's that honesty that makes me
>>able to keep putting it out. Thanks, all!
>
>yourself!
>
>You have always been helpful, friendly and honest yourself, so you've
>made it very easy for people to respond to you in the same way.
Yes! This is very important. Roy and Brian have very different styles
of interacting with their customers. I feel like I'm getting much more
than just a piece of software when dealing with Roy. He's always
here exhibiting a friendly and helpful attitude. He's willing to discuss
how and why his software works, and is up front about limitations it
may suffer.
I get the feeling from Beezley that I'm dealing with a paranoid. He
seems convinced that everyone is out to rip him off. He has reacted
suspiciously to the most benign technical questions (when he even
responded at all). That sort of attitude tends to be self-fullfilling because
it generates bad feelings among his customers and potential customers.
It is lots easier to rationalize stealing from someone like that (though
that's no excuse for theft, but it is human nature).
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke...@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
Gary Coffman
>Greetings Fellow Hams,
>
>This was originally written Monday when the thread contained 3 messages;
>this first and the second paragraph is new. I've since read the new ones
>and found much to appreciate in most messages. The comments on marketing
>are interesting but not helpful. I know of one ham software company that
>spent $10k plus on ads during one year plus had new product announcments
>and columnist write-ups, yet some coustomrs still asked: wow, why don't
>you advertise.
>
>So, let good things come from this thread; let one of them be "HOW?" how
>to accomplish this great feat of marketing ham software.
It isn't easy. But one of the prime rules of marketing is that you catch more
flies with honey than with vinegar. Software 2000 and Netrom was another
example where paranoia let the crackers win. I think that software authors
have a better chance of succeeding in the ham market if they don't approach
it with a chip on their shoulder. The ham market *is* a den of thieves to a
certain extent, but you can't alienate your real customers in an attempt to
thwart the thieves. You have to finesse the crackers and turn them to your
advantage as a secondary distribution channel.
You do that by offering what the cracker can't, real support and timely
response to customer demands for enhancements or adaptations. If
your level of support to your real customers is high enough, even some
of those using pirated copies may buy a legitimate one in order to obtain
that support. And with wide distribution (illegitimate though it may be), a
much larger group of people become exposed to your product and its
advantages. Those who are ethical will then buy your program.
Thus the pirate can help you obtain market awareness and dominance.
Autocad learned this lesson. By removing copy protection from their program,
they gained market dominance for their product, and net sales increased.
Microsoft has done essentially the same thing with their products. There
are probably more pirated copies of DOS and Windows out there than legally
obtained copies. But that has led to those platforms becoming the dominant
ones in the market, and no one suggests Bill Gates has suffered as a result.
Paranoid software authors think that they are losing money for every
pirated copy. But that isn't generally true. Most of those pirates *wouldn't
have bought the program anyway*, even if they couldn't obtain it by piracy.
So these aren't really lost sales, and copy protection schemes just piss
off your real customers.
You have to be realistic in determining how many real customers exist
for your product, and how to maximize sales to *them*. Being paranoid
and alienating those real customers in an effort to stymie piracy isn't in
your best interest. Instead you want them to feel good about dealing with
your rather than with the pirates, IE honey not vinegar.
Now please don't take any of this as an endorsement of pirates or piracy.
What they do is theft, plain and simple. That's always ethically wrong. But
we have to be realistic. When given lemons, we must learn to make lemonaide.
Piracy can be turned into a beneficial aspect of your marketing program if you
understand what it really is. What it really is, is a ringing endorsement of your
product. If handled appropriately, it helps build your real market among those
willing to part with money for software.
>> 1.) [snip] Wouldn't it be better for him to have sold many at $25 rather than a
>> few at $100, and then
>> have hackers put him out of the running?
>
>Sorry to say it doesn't work this way, money wise.
I think you need to justify that. There is an optimum price point for
any product in any given market. If the *perception* is wide spread
that a product is priced above market, then it *is* priced above market
regardless of the effort and expense it cost to produce. Its sales will
suffer, and net income from sales will be below the maximum level
obtainable from that market.
In the ham market, $100 is at the upper edge of the price spectrum
for software. Lowering the price can increase sales dramatically
by placing the product in the impulse category. Most hams won't
hesitate to drop $25 on a program that looks useful, but they have
to be very very sure that the product is useful to them to drop $100
on it. (This seems silly, considering the sort of money hams drop
on hardware, but software doesn't yet have the same status in
amateur radio as hardware.)
>> 2.) connected with point 1- Aren't all software vendors aware that hackers will
>> get into the act anytime there's
>> money to be made- or saved?
>
>I suppose so, just the same as you local grocery store, gas station or
>even your
>neighbors taking "your" belongings from your property.
Yes, but there is a difference. With theft of real property, there is a
redistribution from the victim to the thief, IE one item changes hands
from victim to thief. The victim no longer has use of it, but the thief does.
With the theft of intellectual property by piracy, there are now *two*
identical items, one each in the hands of the victim and the thief. The
"victim" hasn't lost use of his property, and the thief has gained use of
the property. This doesn't look like ordinary theft. What has *perhaps*
been lost, has been lost by a third party, the author, who may have lost
a potential sale. But as noted, thieves generally aren't customers
in any event, so this loss is perhaps more illusory than it may seem.
Theft of intellectual property by piracy is more akin to counterfeiting
than to theft of tangible property. That can distort the market and cause
real harm to the author, or in some cases it can be a rising tide that lifts
all boats due to the larger exposure it gains the author's property. Which
it is depends to a large extent on how the author reacts to it. Paranoia
doesn't help.
William E. Sabin
Gary Coffman wrote:
> It is lots easier to rationalize stealing from someone like that (though
> that's no excuse for theft, but it is human nature).
What a bunch of crap that is.
Bill W0IYH
Az0th
: It isn't easy. But one of the prime rules of marketing is that you catch more
: flies with honey than with vinegar. Software 2000 and Netrom was another
: example where paranoia let the crackers win. I think that software authors
...
: all boats due to the larger exposure it gains the author's property. Which
: it is depends to a large extent on how the author reacts to it. Paranoia
: doesn't help.
I agree with most of your comments, but I would like to add a couple of
points. I'm a software engineer by profession, and have in the past also
written niche applications that were sold by others. I've drawn royalties
for years from one of those, and can offer this observation: most software
geeks don't know beans about marketing or after-sales support. If it had
been left to me to market my own software, I doubt that it would have been
done well. As it was, a buddy with an MBA took it and flew it, and made us
both some money, and provided a useful product to folks that needed it. I
know many software developers, but very, very few with any business sense
at all.
The dynamics of the software industry are also in a constant state of flux.
Right now, the open source movement is forcing some serious re-valuation of
commodity software, with one result the simple fact that in many cases you
really don't need to pay money for software at all. Three of my computers
run Linux virtually all the time, and I didn't have to pay for any of the
software they're running.
"Didn't have to". I did anyway. I paid RedHat for the _service_ they provided
in integrating, bundling and distributing the system software. The rest all
came from the Web, gratis. In a case or two, I've helped develop or test the
software I run, and I probably snag another app or two every other day. Add
to this the convenience (and sometimes, the adventure) of keeping some of the
important software right on the bleeding edge of development through CVS
access to the current source trees, and you have a software-acquisition
environment that flies in the face of traditional, commercial models.
What this sort of thing means to me and people like me is that we probably
won't be buying much Win95 or DOS software. Only if we have to, and only
under protest, and we won't be willing to spend a lot for it because it's
a throwaway, like Win95 and DOS itself are throwaways. If something is
clever enough, and useful enough, the rules change, but in the real world
there's not actually a lot of commercial software people can't pretty
readily live without and still do 98% of everything they need to do.
I see that there are folks already using the original NEC2 engine on Linux,
and one of these days somebody is bound to wrap a nice GUI around it, and
then somebody who _just_ needs NEC2 with a GUI won't be buying commercial
software from anybody. If somebody else adds a rules-based optimizer driver
to the thing, then folks won't be buying commercial code for that either,
and then folks who expect you to pay money for their programs will have to
come up with something else. And so on. It hasn't happened yet, but you're
likely to lose any bet that it won't.
One application suite I wrote was sold for thousands of dollars per
copy to at most a few dozen customers, and was supported on a particular
workstation platform for only a few years. I drew a salary, the company
covered development costs and made a decent profit. This model works
for many companies every day in many markets, and will continue to do
so so long as specific expertise is required to solve specific problem
sets. The open source model where legions of unpaid programmers attack
common or agreed-upon problem sets for fun and prestige addresses other
markets, and derivative money still changes hands somehow.
The model where a lone developer writes a brillant program and also
knows how to market, sell, maintain and support said program well
enough to make a living doing it is, or seems to me at any rate, an
incredibly optimistic model indeed, and probably not one with broad
application. My hat's off to anybody who can really make it work. (My
work these days involves teams of programmers and millions of lines
of code running on proprietary embedded systems, and the picture of
the 'lone developer' just doesn't apply.)
Even so, I have to admit that I prefer the picture of amateurs writing
software for fun, and giving it away for points. As in other venues, this
raises the bar for commercial developers, and in the end the consumer will
predictably realize more value for money spent. Nobody owes the lone
developer a living, especially if the developer is having fun, and if
they're not having fun, they need a new boss anyway. ;)
73 de KF4FJH - RF Buchanan
--
Zathros is used to being beast of burden to other peoples needs. Very sad
life. Probably have very sad death ... But, at least there is symmetry.
Bruce Bishop
>
> >Subject: Re: Brian Beezley still in biz?
> >From: mar...@pobox.com (Marty Tippin)
> >Date: 1/25/99 9:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <36ad70e...@news.supernews.net>
> >
> >Brian got mad, took his toys and went home...
> >
> >Lots of details at
> > http://www.megalink.net/~n1rct/news/rittyfaq.html
> >and> >On 22 Jan 1999 18:55:44 GMT, da...@diusys.cms.udel.edu (Dave Dabell)
> >wrote:
> >>I'd like to get a copy of YO from Brian Beezley K6STI. I've tried calling
> >the
> >>phone number in his qst ad - it's been disconnected. Tried sending email -
> >>no reply. Does anyone know if he's still in business?
> >
> >73,
> >
> >-Marty KIŘLO
> > mar...@pobox.com
> >
> I find this very troubling. Although I have not found Brian helpful, I do
> respect that he has a useful product(s) and is trying to make a living. Others
> have found him helpful.
>
> How can ANY of us advocate this pirating of Beezley's stuff? Perhaps we don't.
> out.
>
> Chip N1IR
I paid about $300 for AO-PRO when Brian first released it and have found
it worth every cent. I still use it every week. He may be difficult to
deal with, but his products have delivered as promised.
Bruce, K6OY
Gary Coffman
>It costs more to set up a marketting and sales organisation
>to sell the stuff than it does to give it away.
Duh! But then you have a smaller (zero) revenue stream coming in
too, don't you?
Roy Lewallen
EZNEC/4, collectively called EZNEC PRO) are and have always been
protected with a hardware key ("dongle"). These are very trouble-free
and insure that no more than one copy is in use at once. I'd hate for
my professional customers to find someone using for free the program
they'd paid $400 - $600 for.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Jacques Augustowski wrote:
>
> I agree with Gary. Roy's personality is "more friendly user" than Brian.
> Brian's software with that key was a nuisance. Roys software never had any
> protection, he only made remarks about piracy and how bad it is. If you
> put a key lock or say its forbidden, for sure there will be hundreds of
> hackers trying to break your lock. It is not only to make a product, you
> must have a great vendor behind your product. Why didn't I ever see Brian
> on this list? Contacting Brian gave clean courteous answers, but there was
> a smile lacking on the other side.
> Jacques
> PY1-HY
Gary Coffman
>For the record, the professional versions of EZNEC (EZNEC-M and
>EZNEC/4, collectively called EZNEC PRO) are and have always been
>protected with a hardware key ("dongle"). These are very trouble-free
>and insure that no more than one copy is in use at once. I'd hate for
>my professional customers to find someone using for free the program
>they'd paid $400 - $600 for.
I don't mind dongles so much. They're usually troublefree, even when
running under an emulator (IE dosemu or the windoze penalty box).
I wind up dedicating a parallel port to them, however, because they can
conflict with things like a Winprinter or stepper motor controller which
uses the parallel port in ways the pass-thru wasn't designed to handle.
Az0th
: >Even so, I have to admit that I prefer the picture of amateurs writing
: >software for fun, and giving it away for points.
: And also for the potential of enhancement beyond what the individual
: developer might produce. What might be overbearing for one individual
: to produce can be made a lot easier if many hands are working at it.
Absolutely, and everybody brings something different to the party. In
some sense, this has always been done, both in hardware and software,
as everybody borrows from published sources. Ecomm just brings this
interaction much closer to realtime, and allows us to capitalize more
effectively on the synergies that people have.
: E.g., I've just starting hacking together some Perl code to communicate
: with my Alinco DX-77T from my shack Linux box(bless Alinco for
...
: of different applications could be written, none of which have to know
: specifics on how to talk to the radio.
Neat idea! Something similar has already been done to accomodate multiple
users of Linux soundcard hardware, called esd: the Enlightened Sound Demon.
esd starts up at the beginning of time, and then anybody that wants to do
sound just grabs a socket from esd, which plays middleman for everybody. I
suppose at its simplest, your radio server daemon just serves sockets and
routes bits from the socket interface to a given serial port. Protocol
conversions could then be added and tested easily at the application layer
before being moved into the daemon itself.
A simple set of bindings could be written for Perl or C or whatever to pass
commands to the daemon. Sounds kinda like an agent, in the SNMP sense. Since
what you're looking for as protocol is probably something like set/read for
things like mode, freq, AGC and such, you might even be able to do what you
want with SNMP, or something SNMP-like. Since you need to somehow torque a
specific radio's protocol needs into your high-level set/read protocol, a
syntax notation would need to be devised, or borrowed, like ASN.1 from SNMP.
Radio MIBs, yeah! This may be _too_ general a solution, a cannon as a
flyswat, but some of the material at least seems applicable. BTW, have you
looked at the skins support in eMusic? This would make it easy to drop a
custom radio appearance onto the generic radio-control application...
Just pondering aloud, but your project sounds interesting. When I needed to
control my NRD-525, I borrowed some serial code from minicom, and wrote a
Motif GUI around it. Not a very general solution, but a throwaway which I've
long since thrown away. If I did it today, I'd probably use GTK.
: I don't know if any of the above will ever come to pass. I do know,
: though, that if it depends entirely on me, it probably won't. I don't
: have the time, I don't have all the radios, and I no doubt don't have
: all of the expertise. If my efforts eventually get enough people
: working on it to make something workable, it'll probably be worth it.
Most of my radios (mostly old Drakes) wouldn't know a protocol if you sang
it, but my 525 would make a decent testbed for the basics. Once the initial
engine is available, folks that write loggers and dupers and such could
play along, and you'd think that CORBA would be a natural for those sorts
of apps, as well as antenna controllers, satellite trackers, grayline maps,
propagation plotters, who knows what.
My system base is a highly customized RH5.1, kernel 2.2.1 plus the current
Xfree86, egcs toolchain, and CVS Gnome/Enlightenment, which is probably OK
as a development environment for such a project. Drop me an email if you think
I can be of assistance.
If you caught Dilbert last week, you also know that before you can do
anything else, you need to find a project Name.